University  Bulletin.  Series  5,  No.  3, 


LIBRARY 
mE 
UNIVERSITY  of  ILLINOIS, 


The  State 

and 

Education 


Annual  Address 


at  the 


Commencement  Exercises 

of  the 

Ohio  State  University 


by 


President  William  Oxley  Thompson 


June  13,  1900. 


Printed  by  the  Ohio  State  University 
Coiajmbus. 


The  State  and  Education 


By  the  very  gracious  courtesy  of  my  colleagues  in  the  Fac- 
ulty of  the  Ohio  State  University — I  have  been  invited  to  deliver 
the  annual  address  at  this  Commencement  and  have  the  privilege 
of  transforming  what  is  ordinarily  an  arduous  task  into  a  de- 
lightful pleasure.  I  appreciate  the  honor  that  has  thus  been 
conferred  upon  me  and  express  my  pleasure  in  having  the  op- 
portunity, at  the  close  of  my  first  year's  work,  of  speaking  to 
my  fellow  laborers  in  the  Faculty  and  to  the  assembled  friends 
of  the  University  and  of  higher  education  upon  the  work  in 
which  we  are  engaged.  I  shall  not  attempt  any  thing  new  or 
sensational  but  invite  you  to  think  along  with  me  for  a  half  hour 
or  more  while  I  give  expression  to  some  thoughts  on  the  familiar 
theme — The  State  and  Education. 

Some  years  ago  while  waiting  in   turn  for  my  baggage  in 
the  splendid  triumph  of  modern  architecture  used  for  a  railway 
station  in  the  city  of  St.  L,ouis,  I  fell  into  conversation  with  an  old 
gentleman  who  was  returning  homeward  after 
having  crossed  the   continent.     The  only  re-  The  Interest 

mark  that  left  an  impression  upon  me  was —  in  Education. 

' '  This  system  of  checking  baggage  is  beyond 
my  comprehension."  He  could  not  understand  how  the  world 
of  traffic  and  business  had  been  organized  so  as  to  make  travel 
for  him  a  luxury  without  responsibility.  L,ike  many  other 
people  he  had  not  seen  that  the  inventive  genius  of  our  people 
and  the  business  sagacity  had  combined  in  the  interest  of  the 
public  comfort  and  welfare.  There  is  nothing  more  characteristic 
of  our  civilization  than  the  evident  intention  to  make  everything 
serve  the  interests  of  the  people.  There  are  opposing  forces,  to 
be  sure,  but  the  net  result  will  show  that  the  greatest  advance 
civilization  has  made  is  in  the  increasing  dominion  over  the 
world  that  has  carried  with  it  the  culture,  the  comfort  and  the 
convenience  of  man  together  with  the  greater  efficiency  in 
his  service. 

Among  these  forces  education  is,  perhaps,  the  most  wide- 
spread and  far  reaching.     The  close  observer  in  his  travel  gan- 


Tw-\ 


not  fail  to  be  profoundly  impressed  with  the  universal  interest  in 
education.  In  every  class  of  society  he  will  find  embedded  the 
belief  that  it  is  of  the  highest  value.  All  believe  in  it  and  all 
are  willing  that  it  shall  be  supported.  One  pursues  it  because 
he  unites  it  inseparably  with  any  considerable  success  in  life,  or 
because  his  desire  for  place  and  position  is  so  controlling  an  am- 
bition that  he  sees  an  education  necessary  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  position  to  which  he  aspires.  Others  believe  that 
education  leads  to  mastery  over  poverty  and  many  of  the 
unpleasant  features  of  life.  Some  regard  it  as  the  escape  from 
drudgery.  Others  are  lured  on  by  the  hope  of  a  fuller  and  richer 
life  to  which  it  invites. — The  culture  it  brings,  the  power  it  de- 
velopes  and  the  growth  it  insures,  all  unite  to  make  the  picture 
attractive.  From  one  cause  or  another  all  people  of  all  classes 
unite  in  the  support  of  education.  The  Church  and  Christian 
men  for  very  evident  reasons  have  shown  a  commendable  en- 
thusiasm in  the  work.  Those  who  apparently  lack  in  the  appre- 
ciation of  purely  Christian  work  are  equally  eager  to  push  on  the 
work  of  education. 

It  happens  therefore  that  the  public  mind  is  as  clear  on  the 
necessity  of  education  as  on  the  necessity  of  government.  That 
education  is  desirable,  valuable  and  necessary  is  a  fundamental 
proposition  now  past  the  point  of  debate. 

As  we  trace  the  development  of  the  interest  in  education  we 
cannot  fail  to  notice  the  increasing  place  that  public  education 
occupies  in  our  history  as  a  result  of  the  active  interest  and  sup- 
port of  the  State.  The  time  was  when  even 
The  Growth  Of  Edu-  an  elementary  education  was  a  private  or  fam- 
cational  Sentiment  ily  matter.  It  so  continued  for  a  long  period 
in  the  Southland.  Higher  education  was  the 
result  of  endowment  by  private  benevolence  or  the  privilege  of 
the  few  who  were  able  to  pay  well  for  instruction.  It  is  almost 
within  memory  when  the  private  select  school  was  the  special 
privilege  of  the  few.  There  was  a  certain  aristocracy  that  at- 
tached itself  to  those  who  enjoyed  the  opportunity  of  the  school. 

The  advent  of  the  free  public  school  gradually  brought  the 
advantages  to  all  and  changed  the  sentiment  of  the  people. 
Special  taxation,  at  first  supplemented  by  subscription  papers, 
made  it  possible  to  reach  larger  numbers.  Steadily  the  free 
school  made  its  way  against  all  obstacles.  It  is  not  entirely  false 
to  say  that  the  adoption  of  our  Constitution  was  celebrated  by 
large  grants  of  land  in  which  provision  was  made  for  public  edu- 


cation.  In  the  North-west  territory  where  we  now  live  the 
ordinance  of  1787  struck  the  key  note  that  made  a  perpetual  al- 
legiance between  the  cause  of  education  and  the  millions  who 
should  inhabit  this  wide  expanse.  The  words  are — "Religion, 
morality  and  education  being  essential  to  good  government, 
schools  and  the  means  of  education  shall  be  forever  encouraged. ' ' 
No  doubt  we  see  larger  things  in  this  utterance  than  the  writer 
saw  but  it  is  worthjr  of  note  that  so  liberal  a  sentiment  should  be 
central  in  the  first  great  charter  of  government  for  the  new  terri- 
tory. In  these  days  nearly  every  grant  of  public  land  sets  apart 
a  portion  of  it  for  public  and  higher  education.  The  land  grant 
colleges  provided  for  in  the  Morrill  Act  are  a  logical  result  of  the 
earlier  theory.  All  this  has  grown  out  of  the  doctrine  that  pub- 
lic land  should  in  some  way  minister  to  public  need.  It  was 
early  seen  that  government  was  not  the  only  need.  The  means 
of  education  were  such  a  need.  To  make  the  public  lands  per- 
manently endow  education  was  to  perpetuate  the  people's  inter- 
ests. That  Congress  was  so  tardy  in  recognizing  the  right  of 
Higher  Education  to  a  liberal  support  is  only  proof  that  conserv- 
ative legislators  are  not  always  as  wise  as  they  are  conservative. 
But  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  this  development  has  come  at 
light  cost  or  without  a  struggle.  The  public  school  has  always 
been  opposed  and  impeded  in  its  progress.  Ther  e  always  have 
been  men  who  could  find  legal  arguments ,  constitutional 
grounds  or  a  social  philosophy  that  proved  the  folly  of  public 
education.  It  was  taxing  the  many  for  the  few  or  it  was  a  fool- 
ish attempt  at  the  impossible.  It  was  plunging  the  S  tate  into  a 
benevolent  agency  or  creating  an  institution  whe  re  political 
miasma  would  breed  corruption  and  death  to  the  State  by  way 
of  eventual  bankruptcy.  These  educational  obstructionists  are 
now  face  to  face  with  the  important  truth  that  although  we  are 
spending  more  money  on  public  education  than  ou  r  fathers  ever 
dreamed  of,  the  State  was  never  so  rich  or  so  resou  rceful  as  now 
and  no  money  has  been  so  free  from  scandal  as  the  educational 
funds.  If  it  be  true  that  full  many  a  flower  is  born  to  blush  un- 
seen it  seems  equally  true  that  many  a  man  has  been  born,  like 
the  Presbyterian  elder,  simply  to  raise  an  objection.  However 
the  great  current  has  moved  right  on . 

When  the  free  public  school  has  won  its  place  a  great  victory 
has  been  gained  for  the  common  people.  The  most  democratic 
institution  of  our  country  was  fairly  established  and  there  were 
some  things  of  which  the  people  could  not  be  robbed .     Gradually 


the  High  School  appeared  here  and  there  in  the  more  favorable 
places.  Then  the  debate  was  renewed.  We  were  gravely  told 
that  a  common  school  education  was  all  that  was  necessary  and 
all  the  State  was  bound  to  provide.  That  was  enough  to 
make  good  citizenship  and  citizenship  was  the  great  concern  of 
the  State.  The  debate  continued.  Occasionally  a  little  I^atin, 
Geometry  or  a  show  of  worldly  science  made  appearance  against 
a  protest.  A  horrible  nightmare  disturbed  the  dreams  of  the 
defenders  of  the  old  order  of  things.  The  schoolmaster  per- 
sisted. The  boys  who  had  enjoyed  a  taste  of  the  High  School 
were  in  favor  of  improvement  and  progress.  Gradually  and 
steadily  the  High  School  grew  until  it  is  now  the  most  domina- 
ting and  far  reaching  force  in  public  education. 

Subsequently  came  the  development  of  the  State  University, 
especially  in  the  newer  West  where  long  cherished  traditions  had 
not  full  control.  They  came  in  response  to  a  growing  popular 
demand.  Ohio,  the  first  state  carved  out  of  the  North-west  terri- 
tory, was  the  last  to  join  the  ranks  of  the  great  sisterhood  of 
western  states  and  organize  such  an  institution.  In  the  history 
of  education  no  phenomenon  has  been  so  remarkable  as  the 
growth  and  development  of  these  universities.  They  mark  a 
distinct  era  in  the  history  of  higher  education.  They  have  held 
up  new  ideals  and  broken  down  old  barriers.  They  have 
destroyed  many  idols  fondly  worshipped.  They  are  the  first 
great  and  systematic  attempt  to  bring  higher  education  within 
the  reach  of  all  the  people.  They  have  been  built  by  the  people 
and  for  the  people.  Democracy  rather  than  aristocracy  has  been 
the  ruling  idea.  Under  these  ideals  these  institutions  have  been 
planted  and  have  grown  to  be  determining  factors  in  our  civiliza- 
tion. As  they  are  better  understood  they  are  more  appreciated. 
In  these  schools  nearly  three  thousand  instructors  are  educating 
over  thirty  thousand  students.  The  wealth  at  their  command  in 
view  of  their  age,  and  the  equipment  now  in  use  is  without  a 
parallel  in  the  history  of  education.  In  view  of  these  things  we 
may  well  address  ourselves  to  a  study  of  the  State's  relation  to 
public  education  by  consideration  of  a  few  propositions. 

The  New  Theory    First  of  fa\let  me  f™ nd  yofu  °f  «"  ™P°r- 
...     _ .   .  tance   of   the  new  doctrine  of  the  state   now 

of  the  State  .        «  -. 

so  universally  accepted. 

As  the  distance  widens  from  the  days  of  the  Civil  War  some 
of  its  results  stand  out  in  bolder  relief.  Among  these  is  the  new 
theory  of  the  state.     The  older  writers  seemed  unable  to  get 


away  from  the  doctrine  of  selfishness  as  underlying  all  combina- 
tions of  men.  Rosseau's  social  contract  assumes  it  as  the  basis 
of  Political  Society.  Hobbes  openly  avows  the  doctrine.  Spinoza 
reaffirmed  it.  The  police  theory  of  the  state  was  a  natural  con- 
quence.  This  in  simple  statement  is,  that  the  chief  function  of 
government  is  to  preserve  order  and  protect  the  natural  rights  of 
men  by  maintaining  the  peace.  The  policeman's  club  is  not 
only  the  symbol  of  authority  but  it  is  of  the  very  essence  of  govern- 
ment in  that  it  represents  force  and  enforced  quiet.  This  ex- 
plains why  the  policeman's  club  and  liberty  have  never  been  the 
best  of  friends.  Under  such  a  theory  there  was  little  opportunity 
for  education.  The  State's  business  was  not  to  stimulate  the 
good  but  to  repress  the  bad.  The  State  had  no  interest  in  help- 
ing a  man  to  do  the  right  thing.  The  delight  was  to  hit  him 
when  he  had  done  the  wrong  thing.  The  state  was  neither  in- 
terested in,  nor  responsible  for,  ignorance.  Its  own  harshness 
took  refuge  behind  the  legal  maxim  that  ignorance  of  the  law 
excuses  no  one.  Under  this  condition  it  became  necessary  to 
define  very  carefully  the  rights  of  men.  As  a  matter  of  fact  this 
subject  is  elaborately  treated  by  all  the  earlier  writers  on  politics 
and  government.  The  reason  is  evident.  All  a  man's  dangers 
did  not  arise  from  the  thief,  the  robber  and  the  highwayman 
whom  the  police  would  punish.  It  was  also  necessary  to  have  a 
protection  against  the  selfishness  and  ignorance  of  the  police 
power.  Thus  far  and  no  farther  had  to  be  enacted  in  protective 
statutes. 

The  refinements  of  this  police  theory  are  discoverable  in  the 
French  Revolution.  It  is  easy  to  trace  the  effect  of  Rosseau, 
Hobbes  and  DeTocqueville  in  the  theories  of  early  Americans 
and  in  our  own  Constitution.  It  was  as  natural  as  the  rising  of 
the  sun  that  there  should  be  opposing  theories  in  the  Constitu- 
tional Convention,  and  that  in  our  early  history  we  should  see 
these  forces  often  arrayed  against  each  other.  There  was  the 
police  theory  of  the  state  strongly  opposed  to  all  internal  im- 
provement and  to  every  expansion  of  the  functions  of  the  State 
through  the  agency  of  government.  At  the  same  time  the  Jef- 
fersonian  doctrine  of  liberty  and  equal  rights  of  the  people  as 
expressed  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  paved  the  way 
for  a  popular  sovereignty.  The  ideas  of  strength  as  represented 
by  Hamilton  and  of  freedom  as  represented  by  Jefferson  were 
thought  to  be  irreconcilably  antagonistic  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  both  men  were  in  Washington's  cabinet.      Many  are 


the  inconsistencies  that  mark  the  pathway  of  all  the  distinguished 
men  whom  we  are  proud  to  call  ' '  the  fathers. ' '  However  the 
contest  continued  and  the  first  fifty  years  of  our  history  under 
the  Constitution  prepared  us  for  a  war  that  shook  the  country 
from  center  to  circumference — all  because  men  were  loyal  to  their 
convictions.  At  the  close  of  this  war  as  the  smoke  cleared  away 
the  nation  rose  to  a  new  consciousness.  As  Mr.  Garfield  put  it 
the  war  settled  the  question  that  this  was  a  nation.  In  this  new 
consciousness  were  the  two  elements  of  strength  and  liberty — 
sealed  in  an  indissoluble  union  and  the  people  said — the  Union 
now  and  forever.  The  freedom,  the  liberty  of  the  people  is  here 
in  all  its  simplicity  while  the  strength  and  virilit}^  is  preserved. 
We  have  gathered  up  the  best  of  both  men's  theories  and 
cemented  them  in  a  perpetual  friendship  and  declared  that  a  gov- 
ernment of  the  people,  by  the  people  and  for  the  people  shall  not 
perish.  This  new  theory  of  the  state  proposes  to  be  true  to 
history  and  to  hold  on  to  the  policeman's  club  for  the  sake  of  emer- 
gencies while  the  major  portion  of  our  time  and  energy  will  be 
used  in  teaching  man  how  to  live  without  it.  The  old  theory 
regarded  war  as  the  great  business  of  the  state.  The  new  theory 
says  that  peace  is  the  normal  condition  of  society.  War  is  the 
accident  and  the  incident.  Peace  is  the  great  occupation.  The 
great  problem  of  government  is  not  therefore  how  to  provide  for 
war  but  how  to  promote  peace. 

It  is  not  without  significance  therefore  that  just  as  this  new 
consciousness  of  the  State  was  expressing  itself  Senator  Morrill 
was  able  to  secure  legislation  which  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
land  grant  colleges  and  by  that  act  forever  committed  the  nation 
to  the  pursuit  of  the  peaceful  occupations.  It  was  the  logical 
result  of  the  new  theory  of  the  State.  Its  importance  will  only 
be  appreciated  when  we  discover  that  it  is  the  foundation  upon 
which  the  future  of  public  higher  education  will  securely  rest. 

It  is  further  significant  that  within  this  same  third  of  a 
century  since  the  Morrill  Act  we  should  see  the  most  remarkable 
uprising  in  favor  of  popular  education  ever  witnessed.  I  speak 
now  not  merely  of  the  state's  patronage  of  all  grades  of  public 
education  but  of  the  wonderful  benevolence  of  individuals  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  increased  gifts  to  Harvard,  Yale  and  Princeton  in 
the  East  and  all  along  the  line  to  the  Western  coast  where  the 
Stanford  University  stands  as  the  latest  expression  of  private 
beneficence.  This  condition  cannot  be  explained  by  the  mere 
increase  of  wealth.     There  has  been  a  great  change  of  sentiment. 

8 


Public  duty  is  imperative.    Even  the  private  citizen  feels  obliged 
to  take  up  the  burden. 

It  is  well  therefore  that  we  note  these  changes  that  have 
occurred.  The  time  was  when  the  king  was  the  state.  Now  the 
people  are  the  state.  The  time  was  when  we  went  to  the  king's 
court  as  the  fountain  of  law  and  justice.  Now  we  appear  before 
the  peoples'  tribunal  where  officers  are  sworn  to  support  the 
fundamental  law  which  recognizes  the  people  as  the  source  of 
both  law  and  authority.  From  the  divine  right  of  kings  we  have 
come  to  the  divine  right  of  the  people.  From  this  new  and 
broader  conception  of  the  State  interesting  themes  arise.  If  I 
had  time  to  inject  into  this  address  a  short  sermon  I  would  per- 
suade you  that  in  dethroning  the  kings  we  had  enthroned  the 
Christ — but  I  must  pass  that.  My  purpose  to-day  is  only  to 
emphasize  to  you  that  this  new  conception  of  the  state  furnishes 
a  most  natural  and  rational  basis  for  public  education.  The  state 
through  the  agency  of  government  now  undertakes  to  do  its 
duty  by  providing  against  the  exigencies  of  war — the  ravages  of 
disease — and  by  promoting  the  universal  peace,  prosperity  and 
welfare  of  the  people. 

When  however  the  doctrine  of  education  is  fairly  proclaim- 
ed and  when  men  recognize  that  the  State  has  gone  into  the  bus- 
iness, the  question  will  not  rest  until  we  have 
found  a  satisfactory  foundation  on  which  to  The  Basis  for 
build  the  whole  theory  of  public  education.  Public  Education. 
From  what  has  been  said  it  is  clear  that 
the  new  conception  of  the  state  takes  account  of  more  than  mere 
defense  and  protection.  It  looks  to  a  healthy,  desirable  develop- 
ment of  the  people.  The  new  belief  is  that  the  state's  duty  goes 
beyond  the  narrow  limits  of  earlier  years  and  that  as  civilization 
advances  the  sphere  and  duty  of  the  state  will  correspondingly 
widen.  The  old  doctrine  of  rights  was  entirely  satisfied  with 
mere  existence.  There  was  no  belief  that  a  person  had  any 
right  to  help  of  any  sort  or  that  there  was  any  duty  of  a  positive 
sort  attaching  to  government.  The  functions  of  government  ex- 
hausted themselves  in  seeing  that  a  man  was  not  imposed  upon 
and  his  rights  not  invaded. 

As  late  as  1870  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  put  himself  on  record 
in  his  ' '  Social  Statics  ' '  as  saying  that  the  state  had  no  more  right 
to  administer  education  than  to  administer  religion.  He  regards 
taxation  for  either  purpose  as  an  infringement  of  the  rights  of  the 
person  taxed  and  therefore  wrong.     He  argues  at  length  that  the 


child  has  no  right  to  education  inasmuch  as  a  neglect  to  edu- 
cate did  not  actually  invade  any  natural  right  with  which  the 
child  was  born. 

For  a  young  man  educated  in  the  atmosphere  of  modern 
thought  and  life  to  fall  suddenly  upon  Mr.  Spencer's  chapter  on 
National  Education,  would  render  him  unable  to  believe  his  eyes 
in  reading,  so  completely  have  we  turned  away  from  the  earlier 
position.  At  the  vital  point  in  his  argument  modern  thought 
takes  issue.  We  now  distinctly  teach  that  society  is  a  unit  and 
burdened  with  some  responsibility.  Children  born  into  this 
world  without  their  consent  but  with  the  deliberate  consent  of 
society  have  some  rights  that  society  organized  in  the  state  is 
bound  to  recognize  and  respect.  These  are  not  simply  the  right 
of  existence  as  the  child  may  be  able  to  prolong  it.  The  right  to 
a|healthf  ul  growth  of  the  prophetic  powers  with  which  the  child 
has  been  endowed  is  sacred.  This  right  involves  a  duty  on  the 
part  of  society.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  rights  grow  out  of 
duties  or  that  duties  grow  out  of  rights,  but  that  rights  and 
duties  are  correlative  so  that  where  rights  exist  corresponding 
duties  are  always  found.  The  real  issue  therefore  is  whether 
this  fuller  and  broader  definition  of  rights  can  be  maintained.  If 
this  can  be  done  then  the  word  duty  shines  out  in  clearer  light. 
We  have  come  to  believe  that  society  cannot  organize  itself  un- 
der the  forms  of  government  and  escape  responsibility.  The 
state  operating  through  the  agencies  of  government  is  bound  to 
be  ethical.  Otherwise  it  cannot  show  any  sufficient  reason  for 
existence.  The  state  cannot,  like  a  corporation,  plead  that  it 
has  no  soul  and  no  conscience.  The  whole  basis  for  law  both  in 
the  local  and  the  international  spheres  is  an  ethical  basis.  There 
is  no  truth  in  the  logic  that  would  argue  that  the  whole  people 
may  be  less  moral  than  the  individual.  The  truth  is  the  state  is 
under  obligations  to  be  more  so.  The  whole  array  of  govern- 
mental forces  with  which  we  are  familiar  is  based  upon  the 
necessity  of  ethics.  There  can  be  no  escape  from  the  conclusion 
that  the  only  state  that  can  successfully  maintain  its  right  to  ex- 
istence is  the  ethical  state.  The  history  of  war  from  whatever 
point  you  view  it  will  support  this  conclusion. 

But  now  ethics  is  essentially  a  question  of  relations.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  ethics  in  the  abstract  and  apart  from  the  con- 
ception of  relations.  The  whole  theory  is  based  upon  concrete 
relations.  This  being  true  the  state  may  not  be  indifferent  to  its 
own  members  and  yet  maintain  its  ethical  character.     The  truth 

10 


is  the  state  is  under  infinitely  greater  obligations  than  most 
people  have  either  believed  or  affirmed.  It  is  often  said  that 
hospitals,  asylums  and  eleemosynary  institutions  of  all  kinds  are 
the  outgrowth  of  Christianity.  This  is  true  and  yet  it  is  not 
quite  the  truth.  The  truth  is,  that  Christianity  has  taught  a 
new  ethics  for  the  state.  Paganism  was  weak  at  this  point.  But 
when  Christianity  had  awakened  a  new  conscience  and  a  new  con- 
sciousness and  had  revealed  the  new  relations  between  men,  the 
state  that  would  govern  such  men  was  put  under  the  bonds  of  a 
new  duty.  To  divorce  the  state  from  ethics  is  suicidal.  You 
cannot  separate  life  into  political,  social,  secular  and  ethical 
sections.  The  truth  is  that  ethics  is  a  fundamental  science  that 
emerges  at  the  very  first  and  simplest  relations  established  be- 
tween men  or  between  men  and  the  state.  It  must  therefore 
touch  all  questions — social,  political  or  secular. 

The  new  theory  of  the  state  recognizes  the  doctrine  of  duty. 
There  is  an  element  of  oughtness  in  the  state's  relation  to  the 
real  needs  of  the  people.  The  state  must  do  its  duty  according 
to  the  measure  of  its  ability.  In  other  words  the  state  exists  for 
the  people.  At  this  point  we  see  that  the  fundamental  question 
is  a  question  of  fact.  What  are  the  real  needs  of  the  people? 
To  that  question  the  state  is  bound  to  address  itself,  and  having 
discovered  the  needs,  to  do  its  duty  in  the  premises.  Our  theme 
today  limits  our  inquiry  therefore  to  one  question,  viz.,  whether 
education  is  a  real  and  universal  need.  Is  this  need  of  such  a  na- 
ture as  to  call  for  the  state's  help  as  a  matter  of  duty?  To  this 
question  I  give  a  most  cheerful  and  unhesitating  affirmative.  But 
some  one  will  immediately  ask  if  there  are  not  other  needs.  Most 
assuredly.  Education  is  not  the  only  duty  of  the  state.  We 
need  however,  to  be  on  our  guard  against  the  sophistry  that  re- 
sponds by  saying  that  wealth  is  also  a  need.  So  also  is  a  com- 
fortable house  and  on  through  the  list.  The  .fallacy  reveals 
itself  when  we  remember  that  wealth  is  not  a  fundamental  nec- 
essity but  that  manhood  and  character  are.  The  state  is  not  or- 
ganized for  the  purpose  of  creating  wealth.  Its  greatest  interest 
is  manhood.  It  is  well  to  remember  that  no  person  was  ever 
born  with  a  natural  right  to  wealth.  The  most  that  can  be  said 
is,  that  he  was  born  with  a  right  to  acquire  it  honestly.  On  the 
other  hand  the  strictest  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  rights 
has  allowed  the  right  of  life  and  the  protection  of  it.  My  con- 
tention is  that  the  right  to  growth  and  development  is  as  secure 
and  sacred  as  the  right  to  protection  .     There  is  no  occasion  for 

11 


alarm  at  this  doctrine.  Public  education  has  been  called  pater- 
nalistic or  socialistic  for  the  lack  of  a  better  term.  The  truth  is, 
it  is  neither  paternalism  nor  socialism. 

This  basis  on  which  I  place  the  right  and  duty  of  public  ed- 
ucation is  very  much  broader  and  more  secure  than  many  cur- 
rent notions.  It  is  often  said  that  we  educate  in  order  to  citizen- 
ship, a  very  desirable  result.  But  as  every  one  knows  the  def- 
inition of  citizenship  is  very  uncertain.  No  such  narrow  basis 
would  ever  support  present  practices.  All  our  education  goes 
beyond  any  conception  of  citizenship  that  would  be  introduced 
into  a  discussion  of  this  question.  Besides  it  is  absolutey  im- 
possible to  do  such  a  thing.  Education  never  reaches  the  point 
of  citizenship.  This  whole  theory  puts  it  upon  the  basis  of  ex- 
pediency— a  position  which  cannot  be  successfully  defended  for 
any  extended  system  of  education.  Then  too,  the  common  doc- 
trine is  familiar  that  a  democracy  cannot  be  maintained  witli  an 
ignorant  constituency.  This  is  too  true  to  need  debate.  The 
insufficiency  of  such  a  supposition  for  a  basis  of  public  education 
lies  in  the  fact  that  no  man  can  determine  the  amount  of  educa- 
tion necessary  to  maintain  any  given  type  of  democracy.  The 
moment  we  assume  such  a  position  we  are  met  with  the  fact 
that  the  indefiniteness  of  the  terms  leads  to  an  endless  discussion 
as  to  the  amount  of  education  the  state  may  provide.  In  my 
judgment  the  continued  discussion  of  this  question  has  largely 
arisen  from  the  false  premises  on  which  the  doctrine  of  public 
education  has  been  based.  But  when  we  assume  the  state's  duty 
and  the  individual's  right  the  problem  becomes  simpler  and  we 
need  discuss  but  the  two  propositions — the  needs  of  the  people 
and  the  ability  of  the  state  to  meet  those  needs. 

I  may  pass  now  to  a  few  remarks  upon  the  quality  of  the 
education  the  state  provides.  Very  much  anxiety  has  been  felt 
•  about  the  secular  and  godless  character  of  the 
The  Quality  Of  the  state  schools  from  the  public  school  on 
State's  Education,  through  the  university.  All  good  people 
must  be  in  sympathy  with  those  who  are  so- 
licitous about  the  quality  of  the  education  afforded  our  young 
people  and  the  environment  in  which  they  are  trained.  There  is 
no  question  apart  from  the  question  of  personal  godliness  more 
vital  to  the  individual  and  to  society  than  the  question  of  the 
forces  that  predominate  in  life  as  a  result  of  our  training  in 
schools. 

I^et  me  remark    therefore    that   there   is  a  different   motive 

12 


ruling  in  the  state  from  that  which  rules  in  the  church  so  far  as 
educational  work  is  concerned.  The  state's  motive  is  ethical. 
The  ethics  by  which  the  state  is  moved  is,  moreover,  Christian 
ethics.  There  is  however,  a  distinction  between  Christianity  and 
ethics,  and  we  need  not  confuse  the  Christian  with  the  ethical 
motive.  The  church  engages  in  the  work  of  education  from 
purely  Christian  motives.  The  state  is  moved  by  duty — the 
church  by  love.  The  church  would  not  conceal  this  motive  than 
which  nothing  can  be  nobler:  I  would  not  have  her  do  so. 
There  need  be,  however,  no  conflict  between  the  motives  or  be- 
tween the  methods  of  education  that  proceed  from  these  motives;. 
The  difference  in  motive  arises  from  the  difference  in  fact.  The 
church  is  of  necessit}^  a  religious  organization.  Where  they  have 
turned  themselves  into  ethical  societies  they  have  failed  as 
churches  and  have  usually  lacked  the  enthusiasm  for  organiz- 
ing educational  movements  except  under  state  control.  The 
state  is  however,  of  necessity  an  ethical  state  else  it  cannot  main- 
tain its  right  to  existence.  Under  the  sway  of  Christianity  the 
church  is  a  Christian  institution  and  therefore  moved  by  Chris- 
tian motives  while  the  state  under  the  like  influences  is  an  eth- 
ical state  moved  by  ethical  motives.  The  quality  of  the  educa- 
tion may  differ  and  usually  does,  but  ought  not  to  be  antagonis- 
tic. 

The  mistake  so  often  made  in  such  questions  is  very  evident. 
There  are  those  who  assume  that  because  they  are  teaching  the 
Bible  they  are  teaching  Christianity  and  religion  and  when  they 
are  teaching  science  they  are  not  teaching  religion. 

The  truth  is  that  oftentimes  in  neither  case  is  much  religion 
taught. 

It  may  be  well  for  us  to  remember  that  all  true  teaching  has 
in  it  the  same  spirit.  I  care  not  what  the  subject  taught  may 
be,  every  true  teacher  in  his  work  looks  ■'  not  only  upon  his  own 
things  but  also  upon  the  things  of  others."  The  very  act  of 
successful  teaching  requires  that  wre  enlist  ourselves  in  the  best 
interests  of  our  students.  That  is  the  working  side  of  essential 
Christianity.  There  is  a  very  close  parallel  so  far  as  the  spirit 
goes  between  the  true  teacher  and  the  great  teacher  sent  from 
God.  All  true  teaching  ends  in  the  enlightenment  and  uplift  of 
the  Soul.  This  is  redemptive  work  of  a  very  noble  type. 
We  may  write  on  the  doors  of  our  class  rooms  and  proclaim  to 
the  world  iu  loudest  terms  that  we  are  agnostics  in  religion, 
doubters  in  politics  and  anarchists  in  society  but  every  time  we 

13 


meet  our  classes  we  deny  the  record.  We  there  engage  in  a  con- 
structive work  that  contradicts  all  our  negations.  True  teaching 
cannot  end  in  the  destruction  of  faith  or  life.  It  is  rather  faith 
working  by  love.  The  profession  of  teaching  embodies  a  great 
host  of  men  and  v/omen  engaged  in  essentially  the  same  work 
in  essentially  the  same  spirit.  As  wTe  realize  the  scope  of  the 
work  we  shall  see  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  how  little  we  may 
do  or  of  how  few  may  engage  in  the  work  but  rather  a  question 
of  how  to  multiply  the  agencies  and  increase  the  cooperation 
among  the  workers. 

From  the  remarks  already  made  I  may  now  add  that  the 
education  afforded  by  the  state  must  so  far  as  its  method  and 
spirit  be  concerned  be  of  the  highest  ethical  character.  No 
defense  can  be  made  for  a  reckless  or  immoral  method  or  spirit 
in  a  state  school  of  any  grade.  As  state  universities  increase  in 
age  the  extremists  of  all  parties  become  less  influential  and  the 
school  recognizes  its  obligation  to  maintain  a  high  character. 
The  ethical  standards  now  maintained  require  no  apology. 

At  this  point  we  may  properly  inquire  whether  the  state's 
right  or  duty  in  the  work  of  education  is  exclusive.  To  this 
there  can  be  but  one  reply  and  that  a  negative. 
Is  the  State's  Right  The  right  to  voluntarily  help  our  neighbor 
or  Duty  Exclusive?  who  is  in  need  can  scarcely  be  denied.  In 
the  cause  of  education  a  large  amount  of  vol- 
untary work  has  been  done.  It  is  perfectly  clear  also  that  the 
state  may  exercise  its  right  to  supervise  all  educational  work  so 
as  to  insure  its  character  and  quality.  Whether  such  a  supervi- 
sion would  be  either  necessary  or  expedient  is  a  question  of  fact  to 
be  determined  from  time  to  time.  Individuals  have  from  various 
motives  engaged  in  the  benevolent  work  by  endowing  and  main- 
taining schools  but  the  greatest  movement  has  arisen  within  the 
church.  It  is  well  for  us  to  appreciate  the  Christian  motives 
that  impel  the  church  to  this  work.  I  doubt  not  there  have  been 
times  when  other  motives  seem  to  have  prevailed  but  as  a  general 
statement  we  shall  find  in  the  last  analysis  that  Christian  and 
beneficient  motives  lie  at  the  base  of  all  public  education  under 
the  auspices  of  the  church  and  of  benevolent  persons  associated 
for  such  enterprises.  The  right  to  so  engage  cannot  be  denied. 
The  motives  that  prompt  to  the  work  may  be  relied  on  to  prompt 
to  the  right  kind  of  work  so  far  as  ability  would  permit.  For 
this  reason  there  never  has  been  any  serious  doubt  about  the 
church's  spirit  or  method  in  the  wrork  of  education. 

14 


The  field  of  education  seems  therefore  to  be  fairly  and  hon- 
estly open  to  both  church  and  state.  The  extent  to  which  either 
will  engage  in  the  work  or  the  character  of  the  work  to  be  under- 
taken are  not  questions  to  be  settled  by  any  a  priori  method.  It 
is  purely  a  question  of  duty  and  wisdom  to  be  judged  in  the  light 
of  past  experiences  and  present  needs. 

Most  of  us  will  recall  that  in  the  early  days  people  expressed 
the  belief  that  education  in  the  public  schools  should  be  con- 
fined to  the  elementary  work.  We  remember 
equally  well  that  no  one  was  able  to  define  an  The  Extent  to  Which 
elementary  education.  We  are  quite  sure  that  the  State  Shall  En- 
the  kindergarten,  the  manual  training  now  so  gage  in  the  Work 
common  in  many  of  our  cities  and  much  else  of  Education, 
now  taught  was  not  then  thought  of.  About 
all  we  can  be  sure  of  is  that  people  believed  in  such  an  education 
as  fairly  well  met  the  conditions  under  which  the  people  were 
living.  With  the  new  development  in  modern  life  and  industry 
all  have  come  to  see  that  if  education  is  what  it  ought  to  be  it 
will  prepare  for  life.  But  life  in  all  its  surroundings  and  in  matij^ 
of  its  problems  has  greatly  changed.  As  a  result  educators  are 
doing  what  they  have  always  done  and  always  will  do — they  are 
trying  to  make  the  years  of  early  education  a  preparation  for  a 
larger,  fuller  and  richer  life.  Under  this  conception  the  subjects 
taught  in  the  elementary  and  secondary  or  high  schools  have 
multiplied  and  indeed  have  been  greatly  modified.  The  enlarge- 
ment of  the  field  of  education  which  has  brought  to  the  doors  of 
all  our  people  an  opportunity  in  many  respects  better  than  was 
offered  by  most  colleges  fifty  years  ago  has  been  a  great  move- 
ment in  the  interest  of  the  people  in  which  there  has  been  a  gen- 
eral acquiescence.  It  would  be  a  hopeless  task  now  to  undertake 
to  turn  the  thought  of  the  people  away  from  this  system. 

In  the  sphere  of  higher  education  the  problem  has  been  more 
sharply  debated.  There  have  been  those  who  stoutly  opposed 
any  higher  education  at  public  expense  and  of  course  the  higher 
the  education  the  more  strenuous  the  objection.  In  general  this 
objection  has  been  overruled  on  the  ground  that  the  higher  edu- 
cation was  necessarily  expensive  and  no  one  was  so  well  able  to  bear 
the  burden  of  expense  as  the  whole  people.  With  the  advent  of 
the  modern  curriculum  the  argument  has  been  greatly  strength- 
ened. The  introduction  of  the  modern  principle  of  electives  in 
education  has  not  only  increased  the  expensiveness  of  a  college 
or  university  but  has  added  to  the  argument  that  the  state  should 

15 


engage  in  the  work.  It  has  become  manifest  also  in  the  past 
generation  that  the  progress  of  civilization  has  made  higher  edu- 
cation quite  as  necessary  as  the  elementary.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
and  proof  there  never  were  so  many  people  pursuing  higher  edu- 
cation as  now.  In  primitive  society  with  its  simpler  life  higher 
education  was  a  luxury  but  with  the  greater  complexity  of  mod- 
ern life  many  luxuries  have  become  our  every  day  necessities 
and  higher  education  is  one  of  them. 

The  earlier  idea  of  the  college  was  based  upon  the  fact  that 
it  appealed  to  the  few.  There  was  a  certain  aristocracy  about 
the  college  bred  man  and  indeed  to  this  day  certain  eastern 
colleges  find  this  appeal  to  aristocracy  more  effective  in  certain 
circles  than  any  appeal  to  the  superiority  of  educational 
advantages. 

When  the  state  entered  the  field  of  higher  education  it  did 
so  with  precisely  the  same  motives  that  prompted  the  public 
school — the  interest  of  the  people.  The  state  college  or  univer- 
sity is  then  democratic  in  life  and  method.  It  is  built  and  main- 
tained by  the  people  for  the  people.  It  does  not  and  ought  not 
to  appeal  to  classes  of  people  as  such.  It  comes  directly  to  all  the 
people.  It  asks  no  favors  and  will  not  grant  any.  Its  aim  is  to 
serve  the  people  by  holding  before  them  the  best  ideals  and  de- 
manding of  them  in  turn  the  best  service. 

In  entering  the  field  in  the  middle  and  newer  West  the  state 
university  found  a  large  field  unoccupied  or  poorly  occupied. 
This  was  especially  true  in  the  departments  of  agriculture  and 
the  mechanic  arts — the  whole  field  of  technical  education  and  to 
a  considerable  degree  in  the  field  of  general  science  and  profes- 
sional education.  But  even  here  there  were  many  objectors. 
Men  said  the  state  had  no  business  to  train  men  to  be  tradesmen 
and  mechanics  as  these  things  were  to  be  a  means  of  support  and 
profit  to  them.  This  objection  was  strongly  urged  against  pro- 
fessional .schools  especially  those  of  law,  medicine,  pharmacy  and 
the  like.  It  was  soon  seen  that  the  result  of  such  theory  if  car- 
ried into  practice  would  be  to  rob  education  of  all  ordinary  utility. 
Under  that  theory  the  concrete  could  never  be  taught.  The 
abstract  would  be  our  sole  delight.  Against  such  theorizing  the 
common  sense  philosophy  of  the  people  steadily  prevailed  and  the 
cry  for  a  practical  education  became  so  persistent  that  the  teach- 
ers of  the  most  abstract  subjects  were  soon  on  the  defensive  try- 
ing to  prove  the  eminently  practical  value  of  their  instruction. 
As  a  net  result  of  the  discussion  the  people  saw  that  no  particu- 

16 


lar  subjects  could  be  prescribed  as  essential  and  that  but  few  if 
any,  could  be  proscribed.  As  this  discussion  continued  the  pro- 
priety of  the  state's  effort  in  higher  education  became  more  and 
more  evident,  and  throughout  the  West  and  North-west  the  state 
university  became  a  characteristic  force  in  public  education. 

But  we  have  not  yet  done  with  the  objections.  The  fact  is 
not  to  be  overlooked  that  in  the  early  settlement  of  our  country 
the  church  was  particularly  active  in  the  field  of  higher  education. 
She  established  many  colleges  which  served  a  most  useful  and 
honorable  part  in  the  development  of  the  new  country.  As  al- 
ready intimated  the  motive  in  much  of  this  work  was  the  purest 
and  noblest.  The  heroic  service  rendered  in  many  of  these  col- 
leges commands  our  hearty  appreciation.  But  with  the  advent 
of  the  state  university  some  fears  were  awakened  as  to  the  future 
of  these  same  colleges.  It  may  as  well  be  remarked  at  this  point 
that  occasionally  the  state  institutions  conscious  that  they 
were  the  child  of  the  state  assumed  they  were  the  only 
children  and  proceeded  to  reveal  the  well  known  char- 
acteristics of  such  infants.  The  truth  is,  they  sometimes  reveal- 
ed anything  but  the  proper  spirit.  On  the  other  hand  existing 
institutions  seemed  to  think  that  their  rights  had  been  invaded. 
They  seemed  to  assume  a  kind  of  preoccupation  of  the  territory 
that  gave  them  exclusive  jurisdiction.  The  truth  is,  that  both 
parties  have  often  been  wrong.  There  is  not,  and  ought  not  to 
be,  any  such  thing  in  a  free  country  as  an  exclusive  right  to 
direct  the  interests  of  higher  education.  There  is  an  open  ques- 
tion always  debatable  as  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued.  Is  it  wise 
for  the  state,  the  church  or  the  individual  to  patronize  learning 
and  higher  education,  and  if  so,  to  what  extent  ?  What  work 
shall  be  attempted  ?     These  are  often  very  perplexing  questions. 

A  broad,  and  in  my  judgment,  a  truthful  view  is  that  the 
entrance  of  the  state  university  has  been  a  great  good  to  the 
cause  of  education.  The  presence  of  the  Christian  colleges  with 
their  ideals  and  lofty  motives  has  made  the  character  of  the  state 
institution  better  than  it  would  otherwise  have  been.  It  is 
equally  true  that  the  presence  of  the  state  university  with  its 
considerable  revenues  has  been  the  occasion  of  increased  benev- 
olence upon  the  part  of  friends  of  the  private  and  of  the  denom- 
inational college.  May  the  good  work  continue!  If  I  were  to 
take  Ohio  as  an  illustration  I  should  say  that  the  cause  of  high- 
er education  was  never  in  a  more  prosperous  condition  and  the 
last  five  years  have  seen   the  greatest   advances   ever   made  by 

17 


both  state  and  non-state  institutions.  The  facts  would  seem  to 
warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  results  in  higher  education 
abundantly  justify  the  existence  of  these  institutions.  No  a 
priori  theory  can  ever  settle  the  questions  of  popular  or  higher 
education.  In  fact  they  never  will  be  settled.  Education  is  a 
process  and  for  that  reason  alone  its  problems  can  never  be 
finally  settled.  Experience  must  prove  the  wisdom  of  our 
theories.  No  line  can  be  arbitrarily  drawn  to  fix  the  boundar- 
ies. The  democratic  idea  that  rules  in  the  state  university  will 
logically  lead  it  to  look  to  the  people  and  study  their  needs.  It 
will  adapt  itself  more  and  more  to  these  needs.  It  will  always 
feel  the  pressure  of  necessity  to  serve  the  people — not  by  listen- 
ing to  the  demagogue,  nor  by  following  the  leadership  of  unsafe 
men,  but  by  persistently  holding  its  face  to  the  right  and  to  the 
light  with  the  uplifted  banner  of  service  in  full  view. 

I  may  now  speak  for  a  moment  of  the  relation  of  the  state 
university  to  other  schools.     Manifestly  the  state  university  is  a 

part  of  the  system  of  public  education.  It 
The  State  Univer-  has  no  legal  or  formal  relation  of  this  char- 
sity  and  Other  acter  but  it  springs  from  the  same  and  is  sup- 

SchOOls.  ported  by  the  same   people.     In  .some  states 

the  university  is  provided  for  by  the  consti- 
tution; in  others,  as  in  Ohio,  it  is  the  creature  of  the  statute. 
Naturally  therefore  its  relation  to  the  high  schools  of  a  state 
should  be  at  once  inspiring  and  helpful.  The  leadership  is  not  one 
of  form  or  dictation,  but  no  other  institution  comes  into  so  close  a 
relation  to  the  whole  system.  The  people  who  provide  for  and 
support  such  an  institution  have  a  right  to  insist,  if  they  will, 
upon  the  cooperation  of  the  university  with  the  high  school  or  of 
the  high  school  with  the  university.  I  regard  this  principle  of 
more  importance  than  any  question  of  standards  however  im- 
portant they  may  be.  The  university  by  virtue  of  its  place  and 
opportunity  may  scarcely  justify  its  existence  unless  its  helpful 
work  shall  reach  the  schools  of  the  state  and  inspire  them  to 
better  things.  It  is  operated  not  simply  in  the  interests  of  its 
own  students  but  in  the  interests  of  public  education.  At  this 
point  men  have  not  always  agreed  but  as  the  work  of  education 
becomes  better  understood  there  will  be  greater  unity.  The 
state  schools  virtually,  if  not  formally,  constitute  all  there  is 
at  present  of  a  public  system.  The  interests  of  the  youth  will 
soon  reveal  the  necessity  of  a  more  careful  supervision  by  the 
state  of  all  the  teaching  done  within  its  borders.     There  is  no 

18 


justification  of  the  presumption  that  any  education  is  a  private 
enterprise.  All  true  education  must  look  to  the  good  of  the 
people  and  the  welfare  of  the  state.  The  time  will  never  come 
in  a  free  country  like  ours  when  the  state  may  become  arbitrary 
in  these  things  but  the  growing  public  sentiment  will  increasing- 
ly demand  that  all  schools  meet  the  reasonable  requirements  in 
the  interest  of  the  people.  To  do  this  the  state  without  any  in- 
fringement of  rights  will  see  that  all  education  shall  recognize 
certain  standards  as  binding.  The  state's  institutions  will  need 
the  supervision  as  well  as  others.  The  increasing  vigilance  of 
the  state  in  the  interests  of  the  people  will  hold  us  all  to  duty. 
No  institution  will  domineer  over  others  but  all  alike  will  re- 
spond to  the  call  of  an  enlightened  and  cultivated  sentiment. 
The  supervision  may  not  be  formal  but  it  will  be  none  the  less 
effectual.  The  state  will  some  day  insist  on  honest  and  right 
methods  from  the  kindergarten  to  the  university.  It  will  insist 
that  fraudulent  practices  may  not  continue.  There  is  no  power 
so  effective  in  maintaining  educational  standards  as  the  state. 
Its  own  institutions  should  be  the  first  to  respond  to  this  demand. 
The  effect  of  this  supervision  will  eventually  make  all  education- 
al institutions  more  public  and  more  vitally  related  to  the  state's 
educational  enterprises  than  they  are  now  conceived  to  be.  They 
will  be  more  carefully  coordinated.  They  will  not  be  mutually 
destructive  but  mutually  helpful. 

The  demand  of  college  education  of  a  high  grade  if  we  may 
judge  by  the  enrollment  has  greatly  increased  in  the  last  thirty 
years.  If  the  demand  shall  continue  to  increase  it  is  entirely 
reasonable  to  presume  that  for  a  still  higher  education  than  is 
now  afforded  there  will  be  a  considerable  demand.  In  this  the 
state  will  probably  lead  by  reason  of  the  ability  to  command  the 
resources  necessary  to  carry  it  on.  Even  now  there  is  a  reason 
why  strictly  university  work  and  professional  work  should  be 
undertaken  by  the  state  institutions.  They  are  best  able  to  do 
so.  In  following  this  suggestion  the  state  will  both  stimulate 
and  complete  the  work  done  elsewhere. 

A  word  now  as  to  the  state  university  and  the  public.  It 
may  be  well  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  university  is  the 
peoples'  institution.  To  such  a  place  we  may 
fittingly  come  with  the  statement  that  pub-  The  University 
lie  service  is  a  manifest  duty.  No  where  else  and  the  Public. 
is  there  a  better  opportunity  to  develop  typ- 
ical citizenship.     The  state  university  does  not  often  furnish  the 

19 


opportunity  to  develop  and  cultivate  particular  types  of  men  as 
other  colleges  do.  It  is  perhaps  well  that  is  so.  The  democrat- 
ic ideas  that  must  always  prevail  in  a  state  university  will  pre- 
serve its  spirit  of  freedom  and  protect  it  against  the  narrowness 
developed  where  an  aristocratic  sentiment  rules.  The  state  uni- 
versity must  always  be  the  university  of  the  people,  and  keep  its 
heart  close  to  their  needs.  More  than  any  other  it  will  be  their 
leader.  The  importance  of  a  proper  public  spirit  in  such  schools 
cannot  be  over  estimated.  This  spirit  will  cultivate  and  maintain 
a  proper  respect  for  law — for  authority,  and  will  maintain  a 
proper  sentiment  upon  questions  of  public  morality  and  public 
welfare.  The  best  sentiment  of  our  civilization  should  cluster 
about  the  state  university — not  because  the  best  students  matric- 
ulate there  but  because  the  public  joins  with  the  government  of 
the  institution  in  bringing  such  sentiment  to  the  student  body. 
Our  duty  in  this  particular  seems  clear.  It  is  part  of  our  public 
service  the  scope  of  which  cannot  be  better  stated  than  in  the 
words  of  the  beloved  and  lamented  Dr.  Orton  in  his  address  to 
the  first  graduating  class  when  he  said,  "  It  is  to  public  educa- 
tion that  we  must  look  for  the  chief  power  in  welding  and  uni- 
fying the  discordant  elements  of  our  national  life,  and  of  that 
public  education  the  state  university  properly  expanded  and 
equipped,  is  the  summit  and  the  crown." 

One  other  word  and  I  close.  The  great  purpose  of  the  ex- 
penditure of  public  revenues  is  to  foster  and  inspire  the  best  in 
men  and  women.  It  is  a  rational  expectation  therefore,  that 
these  men  and  women  when  educated  shall  catch  the  best  spirit 
of  the  university,  and  be  its  best  friends.  It  is  unnatural  that 
the  child  forsake  the  mother  and  deplorable  when  the  graduates 
of  any  institution  lose  their  interest  in  the  college  that  has  helped 
to  make  them.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  the  alumni  of  a  college 
are  the  college.  They  are  the  best  proof  of  its  work.  To  them 
we  point  as  the  fruit  by  which  we  are  to  be  known.  But  above 
the  duty  of  loyalty  to  alma  mater  I  place  the  duty  of  educated 
men  to  the  public.  A  state  university  supported  by  the  people 
has  brought  to  young  men  and  women  at  great  cost  the  oppor- 
tunities of  an  education.  The  school  does  infinitely  more  for  the 
boy  than  the  same  boy  when  he  becomes  a  man  can  do  for  the 
school,  but  his  debt  is  not  to  the  school  so  much  as  to  his  civili- 
zation. The  college  graduate  cannot  serve  his  college  better  or 
pay  his  obligation  sooner  than  by  a  devoted  service  to  the  cause 
of  humanity.     Here  is  the  field  for  which  he  has  been  prepared 

20 


and  the  end  to  which  he  has  been  educated.  I  am  disposed  to 
say  that  the  public  may  of  right  expect  great  things  of  those  who 
have  enjoyed  the  privileges  afforded.  It  is  gratifying  to  know 
that  college  men  are  recognizing  this  obligation.  If  our  young 
men  and  women  shall  respond  to  this  opportunity  with  heart  and 
will  the  justification  of  higher  education  will  be  complete.  In 
the  light  of  what  has  been  done  by  the  public  in  the  interest  of 
education  there  would  seem  to  be  no  obligation  resting  upon  the 
educated  young  man  or  woman  greater  than  that  of  service  to 
his  day  and  generation.  This  should  be,  not  a  drudgery,  but  a 
grateful  recognition  of  the  common  helpfulness  of  society.  We 
need  to  learn  that  what  we  are  other  people  have  helped  us  to 
become.  Not  the  least  factor  in  our  lives  is  the  university  where 
we  have  had  the  time  for  study,  reflection  and  a  true  measure  of 
our  powers.  It  is  here  we  have  caught  most  of  our  ideals  that 
have  lifted  us  into  a  better  world.  Shall  I  make  the  appeal  in 
vain  to-day  when  I  urge  upon  the  alumni  and  students  of  the 
Ohio  State  University  the  supreme  duty  of  service  ?  Everything 
in  the  past  ten  years  in  our  history  has  put  renewed  emphasis 
upon  the  importance  of  the  educated  man  or  woman.  He  who 
looks  to  the  future  should  see  a  growing  opportunity  for  a  noble 
service.  He  who  makes  his  college  life  a  preparation  for  such 
service  hath  chosen  the  better  part  which  shall  not  be  taken  away. 


21 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3  0112  105552167 


